Backcourt or not?

[Spence]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

I think I remember reading about this situation in the past on this board, but actually had it happen last night. I am trail, A1 bringing the ball up from BC and for whatever reason decides to start going East/West at the point where he is straddling the HC line, ball being dribbled in the FC. B1 reaches in and bats the ball just a foot or so away from A1. A1 then touches the ball with his back foot still in the backcourt. I have a violation since I have 1) team control and 2) a ball in the frontcourt once the ball was batted away 3) A1 first to touch the ball while in the BC - correct? I believe I was, but this is really a bang-bang type of play. It is beyond me why players play with fire along the HC line makes it a difficult situation to officiate. Any tips on what to focus on here to make this play "slow down"? You're watching for contact on the dribbler, ensuring that he maintains his dribble, watching to see when FC status is established...just a lot going on here..

For clarification, when you say "straddling the HC line, ball being dribbled in teh FC" where are the feet located?

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Spence

For clarification, when you say "straddling the HC line, ball being dribbled in teh FC" where are the feet located?

One foot in FC, one foot in BC.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

One foot in FC, one foot in BC.

So how would he have gained FC status?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Spence

So how would he have gained FC status?

He didn't. The ball did when it was slapped by B1.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

He didn't. The ball did when it was slapped by B1.

Gotcha. So there was no FC status until the ball was touched by B1 who was in the FC.?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Spence

Gotcha. So there was no FC status until the ball was touched by B1 who was in the FC.?

Exactly.

Now, the rule says A has to be the first to touch the ball "after" it regains BC status. The case play seems to treat A1 retouching the ball as both giving it BC status and touching it "after." Most here disagree that he can do both simultaneously.

The Fed case ruling would be different if the ball bounced in the BC before A1 touches it. Many here think this is stupid.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by Spence

Gotcha. So there was no FC status until the ball was touched by B1 who was in the FC.?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Exactly.

Now, the rule says A has to be the first to touch the ball "after" it regains BC status. The case play seems to treat A1 retouching the ball as both giving it BC status and touching it "after." Most here disagree that he can do both simultaneously.

The Fed case ruling would be different if the ball bounced in the BC before A1 touches it. Many here think this is stupid.

So the following would also be a violation:

A1 is holding the ball with one foot touching BC/one foot in the frontcourt and is being closely guarded by B1 who has both feet on FC. B1 slaps the ball off of the leg of A1 and the ball goes to the BC where A1 is the first to touch it. Violation?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Spence

So the following would also be a violation:

A1 is holding the ball with one foot touching BC/one foot in the frontcourt and is being closely guarded by B1 who has both feet on FC. B1 slaps the ball off of the leg of A1 and the ball goes to the BC where A1 is the first to touch it. Violation?

No. Ball never had FC status.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No. Ball never had FC status.

Bear with this rookie.

In the OP, we have an offensive player dribbling the ball at the center line but does not have the ball and both feet in the FC. However, the defender is in the FC and he touches the ball which, if I'm understanding correctly, gave the ball FC status. Correct? The ball then is last touched by the offensive player who is the first to touch it in the BC, thus, a violation.

If I am correct on my understanding, how is that different from the scenario I presented? The ball did not have FC status since a foot was still in the BC.

What am I not following?

[Spence]

Originally Posted by Spence

Bear with this rookie.

In the OP, we have an offensive player dribbling the ball at the center line but does not have the ball and both feet in the FC. However, the defender is in the FC and he touches the ball which, if I'm understanding correctly, gave the ball FC status. Correct? The ball then is last touched by the offensive player who is the first to touch it in the BC, thus, a violation.

If I am correct on my understanding, how is that different from the scenario I presented? The ball did not have FC status since a foot was still in the BC.

What am I not following?

Maybe I found my own answer. Is the difference that in the OP we are talking about a dribble which was touched by the defender in the FC while the ball was NOT touching the offensive player in the BC vs my scenario where the offensive player was holding the ball when it was hit by the defender?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Spence

Bear with this rookie.

In the OP, we have an offensive player dribbling the ball at the center line but does not have the ball and both feet in the FC. However, the defender is in the FC and he touches the ball which, if I'm understanding correctly, gave the ball FC status. Correct? The ball then is last touched by the offensive player who is the first to touch it in the BC, thus, a violation.

If I am correct on my understanding, how is that different from the scenario I presented? The ball did not have FC status since a foot was still in the BC.

What am I not following?

In the OP the poster added that the ball was batted into the FC by the defender (B1) before A1 retrieved it.

[Spence]

Am I correct that if during a throw in the ball is tipped by a defender and caught by an offensive player who jumped from the FC and landed in the BC we have a backcourt violation? I seem to remember reading that with the logic being that the throw in ended when touched by the defender.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by Spence

Am I correct that if during a throw in the ball is tipped by a defender and caught by an offensive player who jumped from the FC and landed in the BC we have a backcourt violation? I seem to remember reading that with the logic being that the throw in ended when touched by the defender.

That is correct. That play was listed on the NFHS and IAABO web sites as interps. I do believe that the described play is in the case book. I believe it is under 'Back Court Violation."

[Spence]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

That is correct. That play was listed on the NFHS and IAABO web sites as interps. I do believe that the described play is in the case book. I believe it is under 'Back Court Violation."

Thanks. One more follow-up then: Lets say it was not tipped by the defense. It was tipped by A2 in the FC and then recovered by A3 in the BC. If I'm reading the rules and definitions correctly there was no team or player control in the FC so I would have nothing. Correct?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Spence

Am I correct that if during a throw in the ball is tipped by a defender and caught by an offensive player who jumped from the FC and landed in the BC we have a backcourt violation? I seem to remember reading that with the logic being that the throw in ended when touched by the defender.

From last season's interps.

Here are the important words: The provision for making a normal landing only applies to the exceptions of a throw-in and a defensive player, and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)